I've been playing one fantasy rpg or another since 1985 (C&C most recently) and I wanted to give Eldritch a try for something different. I picked it up some time ago and was quickly frustrated by the layout and seeming complexity of the game. But after doing some digging and research (thanks for the quick start rules, they helped a lot) I've decided to give the game a shot and decide for myself.

My only real experience with a skill based game (vs a class based one) was Iron Gauntlets of which I was not a fan. So, what I ask is this; tell me why you like Eldritch, why you don't like it, what's easier and faster, and what's slow and clunky. In short, anything and everything that comes to mind. And thanks much in advance.

I am also a C&C player. Right now, I am taking my group through the Upper Works of Castle Zagyg. (BTW, It is pretty easy to convert to Eldritch on the fly from C&C). My group is definitely enjoying it!

The main things I like about Eldritch:

1. The classless system. No artificial "class abilities" to worry about--if a PC wants to move silently, she does, and there are no "but she can't do it as well as a rogue could" hassles.

2. The action resolution system is very similar to Lejendary Adventure (and also to C&C in some respects)--there are no feats or skills as such, but there are broad Abilities that advance with experience, and it is up to the player to make the case for using an Ability in a certain situation. No thing is written that you must have some feat or class to try something. But (if you are familiar with LA) it is better than LA, because it is a "roll high" system rather than "roll low" like LA.

3. Active defense pools, makes combat interesting.

4. Magic system. Flexible, and scales with the amount of power expended (no spell levels (well, mostly)). Fun and easy.

Things that I don't like as much:

1. The lack of saving throws. The Resilience defense pool serves in place of saves, but I just don't like it as much.

2. The book is horribly written (sorry, Dan ). But he is working on a revision which hopeflly should be ready soon...

3. Lots of (initially) confusing abbreviations. I am starting to get used to them, but I still have to look up some. (But then, AD&D was pretty confusing when I was starting to learn it back in '82...).

4. The iniative system is (in my opinion) needlessly complicated. I just use a simple init order based on the Speed Ability + Weapon Speed. It works fine.

5. The lack of attribute scores is kind of wierd at first, but most things are covered by the Abilities (but Wisdom and Charisma are not covered well).

6. Not enough monsters and spells. It's not that hard to convert from C&C, but still...

But overall, I really like it. So I would encourage you to give it a try. The board here is great, and Dan is very kind in answering questions!

1. The classless system. No artificial "class abilities" to worry about--if a PC wants to move silently, she does, and there are no "but she can't do it as well as a rogue could" hassles.

There are also occupational guidelines for players who prefer that approach, but they are just suggested skill bundles.

Quote:

The action resolution system is very similar to Lejendary Adventure (and also to C&C in some respects)--there are no feats or skills as such, but there are broad Abilities that advance with experience, and it is up to the player to make the case for using an Ability in a certain situation. No thing is written that you must have some feat or class to try something.

However, unlike core LA, you can take narrow specializations and master certain aspects, and those options are built into the core mechanic and action resolution system. So Eldritch has a 3-tier ranking system for ability: basic (1st tier), specialization (2nd tier) and mastery (3rd tier). Each tier has up to five steps of ranking, from D4 to D12. The basic tier can branch out into multiple specializations, and each specialization can have multiple masteries.

Quote:

it is a "roll high" system rather than "roll low" like LA.

Yes, in some cases actions are resolved using the classic "opposed roll" method. Sometimes the opposition dice is determined by circumstance, and other times by opponent's ability.

Quote:

Active defense pools, makes combat interesting.

I certainly think so too, but I'm biased. Check out my designer's blog on combat for more talk on that subject (and the Quick Stat covers it well, I think).

Quote:

4. Magic system. Flexible, and scales with the amount of power expended (no spell levels (well, mostly)). Fun and easy.

Magic also has the "one roll determines all" mechanic that I like. You roll your ability and that determines effectiveness and spell point cost, as well as resolving any opposed rolls. Range determines difficulty in most cases, while some effects require a minimum rank in the 2nd tier of ability (specialization).

Quote:

Things that I don't like as much:

1. The lack of saving throws. The Resilience defense pool serves in place of saves, but I just don't like it as much.

We have optional systems that work, and are being playtested (by folks like dunbruha).

Quote:

2. The book is horribly written (sorry, Dan ). But he is working on a revision which hopeflly should be ready soon...

Still, it's a fun game...and yes, I've seen what needs to be done to streamline and better explain stuff. The core book is the result of many cooks in the kitchen, and I didn't write all the parts myself, so...Well, hopefully the Quickstart is a good example of how I can improve and streamline the explanation (I wrote the QS, sans some cut & paste, plus the sample adventure almost from scratch).

Quote:

3. Lots of (initially) confusing abbreviations. I am starting to get used to them, but I still have to look up some. (But then, AD&D was pretty confusing when I was starting to learn it back in '82...).

There's ADC (ability-dice-chain), MRV (max-rank-value), and Defense Pool (DP). Those are the only abbreviations that aren't in common use among all RPGs. It could be worse...

Quote:

4. The iniative system is (in my opinion) needlessly complicated. I just use a simple init order based on the Speed Ability + Weapon Speed. It works fine.

Yes indeed, lots of easy options there.

Quote:

5. The lack of attribute scores is kind of wierd at first, but most things are covered by the Abilities (but Wisdom and Charisma are not covered well).

Encourages RP and character concept!

Quote:

Not enough monsters and spells. It's not that hard to convert from C&C, but still...

That's being worked on. Traps first, then monsters...and I've got some good news on the horizon...

Quote:

But overall, I really like it. So I would encourage you to give it a try. The board here is great, and Dan is very kind in answering questions!

How about that, two surprises in one day. Another C&C player in VA (I didn't know of any outside my group though I had heard rumors) and a designer who's readily available. Shocking.

Thanks to both of you for the insights. I'll need to actually finish a full read through and then run it with my group for a while before I know anything but Eldritch certainly has some interesting ideas.

Things that concern me are no saving throws and complicated initiative systems. The rest of the "negatives" I've been hearing are actually good things for me (no attributes, lots of GM adjudication, etc).

I'm also very interested in the mentioned revision as I think that would help the game along. Any rough time frame on that, the book of traps, or the book of monsters (I don't mind working up my own, but it's nice to at least have the stock and trade done up for you)?

How about that, two surprises in one day. Another C&C player in VA (I didn't know of any outside my group though I had heard rumors) and a designer who's readily available. Shocking.

Thanks to both of you for the insights. I'll need to actually finish a full read through and then run it with my group for a while before I know anything but Eldritch certainly has some interesting ideas.

Things that concern me are no saving throws and complicated initiative systems. The rest of the "negatives" I've been hearing are actually good things for me (no attributes, lots of GM adjudication, etc).

I'm also very interested in the mentioned revision as I think that would help the game along. Any rough time frame on that, the book of traps, or the book of monsters (I don't mind working up my own, but it's nice to at least have the stock and trade done up for you)?

So, anyway, back to reading.

The initiative system was basically following a pattern of "high rank goes first", and then in the case of a tie, heroes go before baddies. But you can simply roll Reflexes rank (as a random die) for each combatant, add weapon speed (if specialized in the weapon group), or magic mods, and go from there. I can help with any questions concerning that, but I'll probably offer several more optional approaches in the next PDF update (and here too..check out Evilcat's summary of Optional Rules).

The traps mini-supplement is due in October, and written by Dieter Zimmerman with some contributions from myself and Spencer Wright.

The first of many monster supplements is written, and I'm gathering art.

The campaign setting mentioned in the core rules is the heart and soul of the game, the reason it's called "Eldritch" and is now in the pipeline (no ETA just yet, I have no idea). It is complete, and already written.

How about that, two surprises in one day. Another C&C player in VA (I didn't know of any outside my group though I had heard rumors) and a designer who's readily available. Shocking.

Hey Jackal, where are you located? I'm in the Shenandoah Valley. Pretty far from any other C&Cers, or so I thought...

I'm smack dab in the middle, just south of Richmond. I've been up your way on business before though, nice area.

And from what Dan mentioned above, the standard initiative system doesn't sound so complex (and I don't mind the same order every round). Unless, of course, I'm missing something. I'm going to try to give the entire book a good read through this weekend so I'll have more to say then.

Good news on the traps and monsters...I'll pick up both as soon as they come out. Any way you could give us a preview of what might be included (we going to see staples like goblins, dragons, etc)?

I'm not all that interested in the campaign setting as I'm about 90% done with a flavor only home brew I've been working on for three years. I'll be sure and share it when I'm finished. Still, I might pick it up anyway...default campaign settings usually have interesting bits if nothing else.

And from what Dan mentioned above, the standard initiative system doesn't sound so complex (and I don't mind the same order every round). Unless, of course, I'm missing something. I'm going to try to give the entire book a good read through this weekend so I'll have more to say then.

Just keep in mind that a creature gets one action per round. It's also in the FAQ; the core rules implied it was one action per "phase" (of which there is typically 5 in a round, corresponding with each die-rank...D12, D10, D8, D6, and D4 "phase"). It was supposed to state more clearly that creatures act within their phase (though weapon speed may bump that up), once per round. Multiple attacks are possible too.

Quote:

Good news on the traps and monsters...I'll pick up both as soon as they come out. Any way you could give us a preview of what might be included (we going to see staples like goblins, dragons, etc)?

Traps is already on the coming soon page. A sample for my first monsters article is a good idea. I'd like to create something that's NOT in that document as an example of what is there. I'll be thinking about that...

Quote:

I'm not all that interested in the campaign setting as I'm about 90% done with a flavor only home brew I've been working on for three years. I'll be sure and share it when I'm finished. Still, I might pick it up anyway...default campaign settings usually have interesting bits if nothing else.

Hey, who knows, maybe you'll find ERP to be a perfect match for your home brew!

In the meantime, there is a taste of the world of Ainereve in the core rules. It's a pretty broad setting, with not too much emphasis on history or local specifics. Although much detail exists if wanted, the book will turns more toward story, flavor and characters, used as building blocks for whatever you want. It was written by Peter Schaefer, an experienced freelancer (who now works for Wizards). He used my guidelines and basic ideas to craft a setting that would best showcase the strengths of my game system. Hopefully it will make for a good read regardless of ultimate use

In the meantime, there is a taste of the world of Ainereve in the core rules. It's a pretty broad setting, with not too much emphasis on history or local specifics. Although much detail exists if wanted, the book will turns more toward story, flavor and characters, used as building blocks for whatever you want. It was written by Peter Schaefer, an experienced freelancer (who now works for Wizards). He used my guidelines and basic ideas to craft a setting that would best showcase the strengths of my game system. Hopefully it will make for a good read regardless of ultimate use

Sounds cool!

_________________"I am the soul of honor, kindness, mercy, and goodness. Trust me in all things." Corwin to Dara, The Guns of Avalon

I had a sit down with my players last night and they seem to like the game (though I admit we haven't finished our read through) enough to give it a playtest.

I'm still combing the rules to make sure I'm getting everything and so far, it's not as rough as some made it sound. Though I admit I still have no idea why Ylundgar (Simultaneous Attacks, p 25, 26) gets to act in so many Battles Phases.

I had a sit down with my players last night and they seem to like the game (though I admit we haven't finished our read through) enough to give it a playtest.

I'm still combing the rules to make sure I'm getting everything and so far, it's not as rough as some made it sound. Though I admit I still have no idea why Ylundgar (Simultaneous Attacks, p 25, 26) gets to act in so many Battles Phases.

I think it was an example that actually breaks the other rules. The Half-orc should not have had the ability to act in so many phases in one round unless it was just for example of the different situations that could occur in a combat...or the half-orc has some special new ability previously undiscovered???? I would suggest that the examples be broken up into separate examples since as you pointed out it, it could cause confusion.

_________________"I am the soul of honor, kindness, mercy, and goodness. Trust me in all things." Corwin to Dara, The Guns of Avalon

I had a sit down with my players last night and they seem to like the game (though I admit we haven't finished our read through) enough to give it a playtest.

I'm still combing the rules to make sure I'm getting everything and so far, it's not as rough as some made it sound. Though I admit I still have no idea why Ylundgar (Simultaneous Attacks, p 25, 26) gets to act in so many Battles Phases.

Ylundgar is very talented, apparently. If I had added that Ylundgar was an NPC capable of "Extra Attacks", as per the rules on page 66, then the example would make sense. Extra Attacks (different from splitting a single ADC) occur one phase after the creature's regular attacks in a round. The example implies that Ylundgar has a Reflexes of D12. So in the second phase, he delayed his Extra Attack option. I'll probably rewrite that example and drop the implied Extra Attack, because that option for monsters isn't explained until later. Examples, naturally, shouldn't include other, implied specialized rules.

I'll also be updating the FAQ soon. I've been sitting on it for a while, adding stuff as I see it come up.

I'm very glad you think the book is readable! I'm aware of the book's warts, so my response in the short term was to make sure errata is quickly available and updated. I'm the one man customer service team.

I had a sit down with my players last night and they seem to like the game (though I admit we haven't finished our read through) enough to give it a playtest.

I'm still combing the rules to make sure I'm getting everything and so far, it's not as rough as some made it sound. Though I admit I still have no idea why Ylundgar (Simultaneous Attacks, p 25, 26) gets to act in so many Battles Phases.

Ylundgar is very talented, apparently. If I had added that Ylundgar was an NPC capable of "Extra Attacks", as per the rules on page 66, then the example would make sense. Extra Attacks (different from splitting a single ADC) occur one phase after the creature's regular attacks in a round. The example implies that Ylundgar has a Reflexes of D12. So in the second phase, he delayed his Extra Attack option. I'll probably rewrite that example and drop the implied Extra Attack, because that option for monsters isn't explained until later. Examples, naturally, shouldn't include other, implied specialized rules.

I'll also be updating the FAQ soon. I've been sitting on it for a while, adding stuff as I see it come up.

I'm very glad you think the book is readable! I'm aware of the book's warts, so my response in the short term was to make sure errata is quickly available and updated. I'm the one man customer service team.

Thanks for the answers, I really appreciate them. It's especially nice to know that I wasn't going crazy on the above mentioned example. lol As for errata, no big deal there. Every rpg has it and you're doing the best thing possible by providing up to date FAQs. Thanks again.

I'm still combing the rules to make sure I'm getting everything and so far, it's not as rough as some made it sound.

Yea, it is fine once you get used to the odd placement of some sections. The editing and layout are confusing in places. But the game is a lot of fun--definitely worth the time to learn it. I'm sure the revisions will be much better.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum